The division judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the apex court in the case of The state of Rajasthan Vs Gurbachan Singh & Others held that Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that when the Gurbachan Singh (PW-1) and Balvir Singh were ploughing the plot which belonged to water works department and Teja Singh objected to this. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-2 both were to the gurudwara and they saw Tej Singh coming from the floor mill of Sohan Lal.
Thereupon, Gurbachan Singh and Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh, who hand come armed and had beaten and inflicted injuries on Teja Singh, which resulted in his death on the spot. Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) had also suffered injuries in the incident.
The FIR was registered and no specific acts, verbal or physical in nature, were attributed to Jangir Kaur and Manjeet Kaur. The trial court convicted the accused and the division bench of the high court allowed the appeal filed by the Jangir Kaur and has acquitted her.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that Section 34 of the IPC i.e., common intention, is clearly attracted in the case of Gurbachan Singh, whose case cannot be distinguished, so as to exclude him as one who did not share common intention with Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, and Manjit Singh. Section 34 of the IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability.
For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available.
Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention.
The facts establish that Gurbachan Singh had shared the common intention to cause injuries with other co-convicts, and the crime was committed in furtherance of the common intention, which led to the death of Teja Singh. Therefore, all of them, including Gurbachan Singh, would be responsible for the criminal act i.e., the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, irrespective of the part played by them.
CASE NAME- The state of Rajasthan Vs Gurbachan Singh & Others
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2011
CORUM- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
DATE- 07.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
